Author
Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency? (Read 372652 times)

People seem uncomfortable in the present - the YouTube access to other people, or Facebook judgmental lifestyle, or possibly just the fact we are in front of screens instead of talking face to face.

There really is something to this. I beleive that people are evolutionarily wired to be afraid of people that are different, and they are getting superficial exposure to "the other" constantly on the internet with none of the face to face human contact we need in order to humanize people. It is magnifying some of our worst human instincts.

Quote

Maybe I'm just bitter that I've achieved FI only to give my children a world that is worse off than when we practiced cold war nuclear drills and agreed MAD was indeed a bad policy, this isn't how I wanted their future to be. I thought this was all behind us. I have lost so much faith in this great country and Trump hasn't even begun.

I feel the same. I have spent the last 14 years teaching my kids not to lie or bully, to be kind and generous and open hearted. Apparently I was teaching them the wrong life skills.

I feel hyperbolic much of the time when talking about Trump, and I know it, but he legit scares me. Not him so much as that a giant segment of the population voted for him. A smaller segment of that population seems to have checked any critical thinking about Trump at the door and really just don't care what he does or says, even if he violates their interests.

That's what is pre-WWIII terrifying to me, that 'normal people' seem to be able to rally behind this thing. It's not Trump necessarily, it is the thing that he is a channel for. People seem uncomfortable in the present - the YouTube access to other people, or Facebook judgmental lifestyle, or possibly just the fact we are in front of screens instead of talking face to face. All of the promise of the internet for healthy sharing has been overwhelmed by bitterness and resentment, and Trump is riding the easy populist wave of being able to tap our addiction to angst via Twitter and Media. He will either leave the world a barren desert, or better for having realized the perils of his abyss - but nothing in between. Like no other politician we have ever seen, indeed.

Plus one-ing all of the above. I feel like I'm going crazy with how upset I am and I look around at my family and social media and most people seem completely unconcerned. Golden1 - this entire climate legitimately scares me too.

Sorry, but this is just sad to see this discussion here. So Trump won't be all that bad of a president? In fact, until he actually nukes or invades someone, we have already excused him for just not knowing a thing about Syria, Crimea, Palestine, etc. I have no faith in his diplomacy, so eventually some crisis will result in more than 6 Americans dying for no reason. Sorry, but this is tantamount to excusing Trump for invading a soverign country called Iraq on false premises, but have fun with your little history squabble. Even his cabinet selection speaks volumes about how he intends to sell out responsible stewardship of our resources.

Maybe I'm just bitter that I've achieved FI only to give my children a world that is worse off than when we practiced cold war nuclear drills and agreed MAD was indeed a bad policy, this isn't how I wanted their future to be. I thought this was all behind us. I have lost so much faith in this great country and Trump hasn't even begun.

I find it quite hard to believe the world of today is worse than that. Trump hasn't even taken office yet - the world of tomorrow may be different than today, but it's hard to argue that overall life in developed countries have been getting better and safer long-term for the last 30 years. I will completely alter my view if Trump's policies lead to school children being taught to hide under their desks.

I think its fair to withhold judgment from the President Elect until he truly screws stuff up - remember Bush was applauded and supported by congress in his decision to invade the middle east - so popular support of policies is not always a reflection on the correctness of a plan of action. While Trump may be a pretty awful person, and hold views counter to common decency, I don't know that this will automatically make him a poor president. Probably doesn't set him up for greatness, but if he fixes some things and makes some things worse, that's about par for the course from president's in my lifetime.

Maybe I've got my optimism gun set too high...

Define "truly screws stuff up" -- if he exacerbates climate change through policies (highly likely, given his contempt for the EPA and, more generally, science) but we don't see the true impact of those effects for decades, does that count? Or is only what happens immediately during his presidency which counts as him screwing stuff up?

Just because our problems today aren't as clearly viewed as kids hiding under desks (which does happen these days, they're just drills for mass shooters rather than nukes, btw) doesn't mean they're any less important.

To all: please, please stop using the "your candidate was bad too therefore we should avoid truly discussing mine" deflection tactic. No matter what you think Hillary was, this discussion is supposed to be about impacts that Trump is or will have. Ignoring people pointing out what his failings clearly already are is not a debate tactic, it's a way to hide your head in the sand.

I also don't care, in this discussion, what Obama's failings as a president have been. Yes, he's had policies I don't like, including many of those pointed out. I still fail to see how that's supposed to make me more complacent about Trump. Yay, Obama has policies which can be viewed as war crimes, so it's not as bad that we've elected an idiot narcissist? Is that really what your point is? You can't come up with anything better in support of your candidate? I mean, really. That's the best stuff you're coming up with in defense of Trump. Oh, that and "he doesn't really mean what he says". When did that become a good thing in a presidential candidate??

Seriously, you're bringing Andrew Jackson up? How is that at all relevant? Are Jackson's duels somehow going to exonerate Trump's history of blatant fraud? We've had a lot of presidents who were slave owners. Are you going to start using them as examples for why Trump could totally bring back slavery and it would be okay because there's historical precedent for it? Your arguments are illogical, and just straight up silly. Stop it. Learn to debate, and stick to the damn point. If you need to bring up other people's failings to avoid talking about your own candidate, then maybe you're trying to avoid thinking about the fact that you helped elect a shitty, shitty candidate.

I doubt it. He's not even leaving Washington DC. I give him a month before he's back on television saying something.

I hope you are right. He is only 55 and has a lot longer to make an impact. The idea of Obama not constrained by the presidency but with a full knowledge of how the government works is rather exciting actually.

Define "truly screws stuff up" -- if he exacerbates climate change through policies (highly likely, given his contempt for the EPA and, more generally, science) but we don't see the true impact of those effects for decades, does that count? Or is only what happens immediately during his presidency which counts as him screwing stuff up?

Just because our problems today aren't as clearly viewed as kids hiding under desks (which does happen these days, they're just drills for mass shooters rather than nukes, btw) doesn't mean they're any less important.

To all: please, please stop using the "your candidate was bad too therefore we should avoid truly discussing mine" deflection tactic. No matter what you think Hillary was, this discussion is supposed to be about impacts that Trump is or will have. Ignoring people pointing out what his failings clearly already are is not a debate tactic, it's a way to hide your head in the sand.

I also don't care, in this discussion, what Obama's failings as a president have been. Yes, he's had policies I don't like, including many of those pointed out. I still fail to see how that's supposed to make me more complacent about Trump. Yay, Obama has policies which can be viewed as war crimes, so it's not as bad that we've elected an idiot narcissist? Is that really what your point is? You can't come up with anything better in support of your candidate? I mean, really. That's the best stuff you're coming up with in defense of Trump. Oh, that and "he doesn't really mean what he says". When did that become a good thing in a presidential candidate??

Seriously, you're bringing Andrew Jackson up? How is that at all relevant? Are Jackson's duels somehow going to exonerate Trump's history of blatant fraud? We've had a lot of presidents who were slave owners. Are you going to start using them as examples for why Trump could totally bring back slavery and it would be okay because there's historical precedent for it? Your arguments are illogical, and just straight up silly. Stop it. Learn to debate, and stick to the damn point. If you need to bring up other people's failings to avoid talking about your own candidate, then maybe you're trying to avoid thinking about the fact that you helped elect a shitty, shitty candidate.

Are you even arguing against anyone in this thread, or just discussing stuff you've heard elsewhere? Where did anyone say "He doesn't really mean what he said."

Also, I feel that comparisons are valid. When one throws out a claim like "Trump will exacerbate climate change." It should be qualified - how bad was climate change going to be? Is he going to increase the amount of carbon placed in the air by the same rate as it increased during Obama's term? Or are we holding him to a different standard? Are we now blaming missing the 2degree mark (which we were never, never going to hit anyway) solely on 4 years of Trump (who hasn't even begun to affect policy), even though that mark was out the window years ago, and was not helped by any other president in history? And truly, honestly, if Trump ends some of Obama's most terrible policies, without burning the place down in the process, I would totally consider having elected an idiot narcissist to have some positive aspects.

If the worst thing you can throw at Trump is he's an unlikeable person with some shitty views, that doesn't really debate the issue at hand; what his impact will be - since we don't know, there's quite a strong argument for being reserved in judgement. It's possible he'll be as hamstrung by congress as Obama was and, like Obama, be stopped from doing even more damage than he would if left unchecked.

So I hope you have something more substantial to offer than "I don't like Trump's views, and he's going to ruin the planet with global warming, and he's an idiot." Because that would be true no matter who was elected, and is not productive.

If the worst thing you can throw at Trump is he's an unlikeable person with some shitty views, that doesn't really debate the issue at hand; what his impact will be - since we don't know, there's quite a strong argument for being reserved in judgement. It's possible he'll be as hamstrung by congress as Obama was and, like Obama, be stopped from doing even more damage than he would if left unchecked.

So I hope you have something more substantial to offer than "I don't like Trump's views, and he's going to ruin the planet with global warming, and he's an idiot." Because that would be true no matter who was elected, and is not productive.

I'm not sure I agree with a strong argument for being reserved in judgement. This is a 70 year old man we are talking about with a life history that is well known. He has spent his life as an avaricious entitled misogynist defrauding and suing anyone he can get away with as well as setting up several failed businesses and assaulting women. Does anyone think he is suddenly going to change or that he'll actually do anything about the unheard conflict of interest levels?? For the first few days I held out naive hope, but then he started naming his cabinet picks, which run the gamut from bad to horrible.

Since you want concrete examples, fine, Obama appointed a Nobel prize winning physicist to the DOE, Trump wants to appoint Rick Perry who couldn't even remember its name as the head of the DOE. Obama appointed a consumer advocate and civil rights attorney to head up the DOL, Trump wants Pudzer, a CEO who has been cited by the DOL numerous times for labor violations.

I'd love for Trump to be hamstrung by Congress, but they show little sign of a backbone right now. Ryan is practically gleeful at the thought of putting through his sanctimonious, self-serving budget. I call BS on anyone that thinks this even has the possibility of ending well.

Are you even arguing against anyone in this thread, or just discussing stuff you've heard elsewhere? Where did anyone say "He doesn't really mean what he said."

Also, I feel that comparisons are valid. When one throws out a claim like "Trump will exacerbate climate change." It should be qualified - how bad was climate change going to be? Is he going to increase the amount of carbon placed in the air by the same rate as it increased during Obama's term? Or are we holding him to a different standard? Are we now blaming missing the 2degree mark (which we were never, never going to hit anyway) solely on 4 years of Trump (who hasn't even begun to affect policy), even though that mark was out the window years ago, and was not helped by any other president in history? And truly, honestly, if Trump ends some of Obama's most terrible policies, without burning the place down in the process, I would totally consider having elected an idiot narcissist to have some positive aspects.

If the worst thing you can throw at Trump is he's an unlikeable person with some shitty views, that doesn't really debate the issue at hand; what his impact will be - since we don't know, there's quite a strong argument for being reserved in judgement. It's possible he'll be as hamstrung by congress as Obama was and, like Obama, be stopped from doing even more damage than he would if left unchecked.

So I hope you have something more substantial to offer than "I don't like Trump's views, and he's going to ruin the planet with global warming, and he's an idiot." Because that would be true no matter who was elected, and is not productive.

Well, where to start. We can definitely agree that he's unlikable and an idiot and you're right, he's not president yet so we don't know his policies. However, from his cabinet picks alone, it's not looking good. If not weighing at any other problem with Trump (conflicts of interest as an example) solely from the people he wants to place it's disingenuous to "give him a chance." I think a lot of sentiment from people who dislike him can't understand why people would vote for such a piece of shit and instead of saying that Trump is that, the only retort is "well, Hilary is bad too."

The thing that has happened when Republicans have taken office for the last 30+ years is rich people get richer and the poor get poorer, They want to deregulate everything and make it easier for corporations to make money at the expense of, well everyone. So here's a guy who has not even run with a backhanded notion that he would like to do those things, but has made it some of his talking points to deregulate the EPA.

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.

Me. I've been saying that. I'll say it again. Trump doesnt' really mean most of what he says, and I think many of his supporters were counting on that being true.

Lock her up? Not so much.Build the wall? Not so much.Drain the swamp? Not so much.Won't change abortion laws? Not so much.Will bring in the best people? Not so much.Will overturn the ACA? That one he's apparently serious about, but that's one his supporters were kind of hoping he was joking about.

Plus consider all of the other outrageous stuff he's said, that everyone assumes (hopes?) is a joke. Climate change is a Chinese hoax? You can grab 'em by the pussy? Look at her face? The man is a walking faux pas, and even his most enthusiastic supporters are hoping he's not serious about this stuff.

Quote

Also, I feel that comparisons are valid. When one throws out a claim like "Trump will exacerbate climate change." It should be qualified

Okay, I'll qualify it. Trump will not only fail to try to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions the way Obama has, I think he'll actively try to increase them. He's already talking about opening up national parks and wildlife refuges to oil drilling. He loves fracking. He actively opposes renewable energy, regardless of price. He appointed the head of Exxon to be Secretary of State. He's setting the stage to be quantifiably worse for global climate than any President in US history.

Quote

honestly, if Trump ends some of Obama's most terrible policies, without burning the place down in the process, I would totally consider having elected an idiot narcissist to have some positive aspects.

What policies would those be? If you're keen on "qualify it" then let's talk details. Which of Obama's policies do you want Trump to overturn, and how many of those policy changes would be required for you to consider Trump's presidency to be a success? Are you ceding any concurrent negative consequences that might offset those benefits, like if you support overturning the One China policy then does a trade war with China offset improved relations with Taiwan?

Will overturn the ACA? That one he's apparently serious about, but that's one his supporters were kind of hoping he was joking about.

I love your whole post, but this caught my eye. He is serious about repealing the ACA and anyone that thinks it won't happen needs to look at his past and realize that with Trump everything comes down to his wallet. The below is why the Republicans in Congress and the Senate HATE the ACA and will do anything to repeal it regardless of the hurt it inflicts on their base. Also, unlike current Social Security taxes, there is no cap.

Under the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, the Medicare payroll tax increased by 0.9 percentage point in 2013, but only for couples earning more than $250,000 and unmarried taxpayers earning more than $200,000. And unlike the old Medicare tax, the increase applies to investment income, not just to wages. More important was an additional 3.8 percent Medicare tax on “net investment income” for those couples earning more than $250,000. That includes long-term capital gains and qualified dividends on stock, income that until now was taxed at a maximum rate of just 15 percent. But it also includes other income that had been taxed at the same rate as earned income, including rent, royalties, interest and short-term capital gains.

Me. I've been saying that. I'll say it again. Trump doesnt' really mean most of what he says, and I think many of his supporters were counting on that being true.

Lock her up? Not so much.Build the wall? Not so much.Drain the swamp? Not so much.Won't change abortion laws? Not so much.Will bring in the best people? Not so much.Will overturn the ACA? That one he's apparently serious about, but that's one his supporters were kind of hoping he was joking about.

I certainly don't speak for everyone, but I certainly want to see the ACA repealed. Completely. And I have met people who get subsidies that voted for Trump in order to see it repealed. So I think that you are generally wrong on this issue.

Me. I've been saying that. I'll say it again. Trump doesnt' really mean most of what he says, and I think many of his supporters were counting on that being true.

Lock her up? Not so much.Build the wall? Not so much.Drain the swamp? Not so much.Won't change abortion laws? Not so much.Will bring in the best people? Not so much.Will overturn the ACA? That one he's apparently serious about, but that's one his supporters were kind of hoping he was joking about.

I certainly don't speak for everyone, but I certainly want to see the ACA repealed. Completely. And I have met people who get subsidies that voted for Trump in order to see it repealed. So I think that you are generally wrong on this issue.

Well, one out of six is pretty good, right? Will that make his presidency a success, if he fails on the other five?

Me. I've been saying that. I'll say it again. Trump doesnt' really mean most of what he says, and I think many of his supporters were counting on that being true.

Lock her up? Not so much.Build the wall? Not so much.Drain the swamp? Not so much.Won't change abortion laws? Not so much.Will bring in the best people? Not so much.Will overturn the ACA? That one he's apparently serious about, but that's one his supporters were kind of hoping he was joking about.

I certainly don't speak for everyone, but I certainly want to see the ACA repealed. Completely. And I have met people who get subsidies that voted for Trump in order to see it repealed. So I think that you are generally wrong on this issue.

Well, one out of six is pretty good, right? Will that make his presidency a success, if he fails on the other five?

As far as I'm concerned, yes. The other five points that you have listed, I never considered terribly realistic anyway. If he can "secure the borders", either by building an actual wall, or by other methods; that would be great, too. If he can fix our not-free-trade "free trade" agreements, more power to him. I never expected much on these issues, because they are so hard. I couldn't care less about the abortion issue, because I don't consider it socially resolvable, even though I find the practice to be amoral, at best. As I have noted previously in another thread, I didn't vote for Donald Trump, I voted against Hillary Clinton. I was never enthusiastic for Trump, and only decided to vote for him when I was standing in the voting booth. I was planning to write in someone else, since the third party choices were so crappy this round as well, but I knew that no one cares about protest votes. Of course, my vote didn't matter anyway, as I don't live in any of the close or swing states. But the real reason that I voted the way that I did was because I didn't want Hillary Clinton to be president, not because I couldn't have voted for any Democrat. Other than Bernie Sanders, who now is unlikely to even survive to see another presidential cycle, all the Democrats on the national stage sucked. And I didn't really like Sanders' socialist opinions either, but there was no discounting his honesty. Given the choice between a good liar who sounds like he might work out, and a good person who sounds like an idiot, I might have preferred the latter; but that is not the choice I was presented.

I doubt it. He's not even leaving Washington DC. I give him a month before he's back on television saying something.

I hope you are right. He is only 55 and has a lot longer to make an impact. The idea of Obama not constrained by the presidency but with a full knowledge of how the government works is rather exciting actually.

Wait, you think that Obama has been constrained by the position of the presidency? By what logic?

I doubt it. He's not even leaving Washington DC. I give him a month before he's back on television saying something.

I hope you are right. He is only 55 and has a lot longer to make an impact. The idea of Obama not constrained by the presidency but with a full knowledge of how the government works is rather exciting actually.

Wait, you think that Obama has been constrained by the position of the presidency? By what logic?

As a very partisan president that stubbornly refused to compromise, yes he was. When he is a lobbyist making millions or a public speaker à la Clinton or runs some charity, that character and his wonderful charms will become assets again instead of albatrosses.

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.

You aren't really scared of Trump. You're scared of the mis-use of presidential power. You should be, but the left has only itself to blame. The left should have been crying foul when their constitutional scholar president was unilaterally assuming powers not named to the executive branch by either the constitution, nor by any of the inane resolutions or laws passed by congress that abdicated legislative branch power to alphabet soup agencies with executive branch oversight. Obama has exercised more "extra-constitutional" power, mostly via "executive orders", than all of his predecessors combined. And that crap about Obama "needing" to route around the will of congress, because the Republicans were obstructionists, is nonsense. That's exactly why we have the separation of powers, so that one branch can limit another. It's not obstructionism, it's the political process as established. And because almost everything Obama actually did for "hope and change" was via executive orders, it can all be reversed on January 21st, 2016. With the exception of the ACA itself, Obama's two terms as president will be, in the long term, as much a non-event as Will Harrison's; and Trump's presidency might be as marred as Chester Arthur's. If any reader just read those names and thought "huh?", look them up.

I doubt it. He's not even leaving Washington DC. I give him a month before he's back on television saying something.

I hope you are right. He is only 55 and has a lot longer to make an impact. The idea of Obama not constrained by the presidency but with a full knowledge of how the government works is rather exciting actually.

Wait, you think that Obama has been constrained by the position of the presidency? By what logic?

As a very partisan president that stubbornly refused to compromise, yes he was. When he is a lobbyist making millions or a public speaker à la Clinton or runs some charity, that character and his wonderful charms will become assets again instead of albatrosses.

Well, I don't agree with your analysis; but I can understand where you get it from. Sort of.

I doubt it. He's not even leaving Washington DC. I give him a month before he's back on television saying something.

I hope you are right. He is only 55 and has a lot longer to make an impact. The idea of Obama not constrained by the presidency but with a full knowledge of how the government works is rather exciting actually.

Wait, you think that Obama has been constrained by the position of the presidency? By what logic?

As a very partisan president that stubbornly refused to compromise, yes he was. When he is a lobbyist making millions or a public speaker à la Clinton or runs some charity, that character and his wonderful charms will become assets again instead of albatrosses.

Well, I don't agree with your analysis; but I can understand where you get it from. Sort of.

Wait,now you both claim Obama stubbornly refused to compromise? Am I in opposite land? Obas compromise with republicans is one of the things I don't like about his presidency

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.

You aren't really scared of Trump.

No, I'm not scared of Trump. I'm white, male, straight and middle class. But unlike many who voted for him, I am my brother's keeper.

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.

You aren't really scared of Trump. You're scared of the mis-use of presidential power. You should be, but the left has only itself to blame. The left should have been crying foul when their constitutional scholar president was unilaterally assuming powers not named to the executive branch by either the constitution, nor by any of the inane resolutions or laws passed by congress that abdicated legislative branch power to alphabet soup agencies with executive branch oversight. Obama has exercised more "extra-constitutional" power, mostly via "executive orders", than all of his predecessors combined.

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.

You aren't really scared of Trump.

No, I'm not scared of Trump. I'm white, male, straight and middle class. But unlike many who voted for him, I am my brother's keeper.

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.

You aren't really scared of Trump. You're scared of the mis-use of presidential power. You should be, but the left has only itself to blame. The left should have been crying foul when their constitutional scholar president was unilaterally assuming powers not named to the executive branch by either the constitution, nor by any of the inane resolutions or laws passed by congress that abdicated legislative branch power to alphabet soup agencies with executive branch oversight. Obama has exercised more "extra-constitutional" power, mostly via "executive orders", than all of his predecessors combined.

Also, Obama used his executive orders to get business done since congress has basically refused to do its job for 6 years. While congress cannot directly veto an executive action, they can pass a bill that changes or eliminates an executive action. They refused to do that. A president (any president) needs to be able to run the country even if the legislature decides that they don't want to work, and the legislature can override the president at any opportunity.

Me. I've been saying that. I'll say it again. Trump doesnt' really mean most of what he says, and I think many of his supporters were counting on that being true.

Lock her up? Not so much.Build the wall? Not so much.Drain the swamp? Not so much.Won't change abortion laws? Not so much.Will bring in the best people? Not so much.Will overturn the ACA? That one he's apparently serious about, but that's one his supporters were kind of hoping he was joking about.

I certainly don't speak for everyone, but I certainly want to see the ACA repealed. Completely. And I have met people who get subsidies that voted for Trump in order to see it repealed. So I think that you are generally wrong on this issue.

Lifetime caps for care were outlawed under Obamacare—but repeal would roll that back, even for people with employer-based coverage. You're good with that?

How about the fact that repeal will mean insurers can start denying people with preexisting conditions again? That's good, too?

And kids won't be able to stay on their parents' policy until 26 anymore. That's cool with you?

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.

You aren't really scared of Trump.

No, I'm not scared of Trump. I'm white, male, straight and middle class. But unlike many who voted for him, I am my brother's keeper.

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.

You aren't really scared of Trump. You're scared of the mis-use of presidential power. You should be, but the left has only itself to blame. The left should have been crying foul when their constitutional scholar president was unilaterally assuming powers not named to the executive branch by either the constitution, nor by any of the inane resolutions or laws passed by congress that abdicated legislative branch power to alphabet soup agencies with executive branch oversight. Obama has exercised more "extra-constitutional" power, mostly via "executive orders", than all of his predecessors combined.

I did not verify the data in the graph. Please post any differing stats with sources so we can discuss.

It is just data. Nothing to see here. It only shows Quidnon is LYING. In fact, no one has ever lied in blog postings more than Quidnon. Hey, saying things where the data clearly shows I am full of it is kind of fun.I think you all ought to try it.

Me. I've been saying that. I'll say it again. Trump doesnt' really mean most of what he says, and I think many of his supporters were counting on that being true.

Lock her up? Not so much.Build the wall? Not so much.Drain the swamp? Not so much.Won't change abortion laws? Not so much.Will bring in the best people? Not so much.Will overturn the ACA? That one he's apparently serious about, but that's one his supporters were kind of hoping he was joking about.

I certainly don't speak for everyone, but I certainly want to see the ACA repealed. Completely. And I have met people who get subsidies that voted for Trump in order to see it repealed. So I think that you are generally wrong on this issue.

And what is it that you want instead? The way things were? I recognize that the ACA had it's faults and needs tweaks, even major changes, but I am baffled by those that want it repealed without any idea of what comes next. I have employer coverage now, but with a spouse that was uninsurable back then and now even more so that he is in his 50s and a cancer survivor, I'm very concerned about our ability to retire in the near future with no ACA.

Me. I've been saying that. I'll say it again. Trump doesnt' really mean most of what he says, and I think many of his supporters were counting on that being true.

Lock her up? Not so much.Build the wall? Not so much.Drain the swamp? Not so much.Won't change abortion laws? Not so much.Will bring in the best people? Not so much.Will overturn the ACA? That one he's apparently serious about, but that's one his supporters were kind of hoping he was joking about.

I certainly don't speak for everyone, but I certainly want to see the ACA repealed. Completely. And I have met people who get subsidies that voted for Trump in order to see it repealed. So I think that you are generally wrong on this issue.

No, he's not wrong.

"Vox senior editor Sarah Kliff wrote a poignant account last week of her visit to Whitley County, Ky., where the uninsured rate declined 60 percent under Obamacare but 82 percent of voters supported Trump. There, Kliff, a former Post colleague, found Trump voters who were downright frightened that the president-elect would do exactly — literally — what he and Republicans promised: repeal Obamacare.

Among those she found was Trump voter Debbie Mills, a store owner whose husband awaits a lifesaving liver transplant; they got insurance through Obamacare, and Mills is hoping the law won’t be repealed.

“I don’t know what we’ll do if it does go away,” Mills said. “I guess I thought that, you know, [Trump] would not do this. That they would not do this, would not take the insurance away. Knowing that it’s affecting so many people’s lives. I mean, what are you to do then if you cannot . . . purchase, cannot pay for the insurance?”

Mills, who supported Trump for other reasons, figured Obamacare repeal was just talk. “I guess we really didn’t think about that, that he was going to cancel that or change that or take it away,” she said. “I guess I always just thought that it would be there. I was thinking that once it was made into a law that it could not be changed.”

Me. I've been saying that. I'll say it again. Trump doesnt' really mean most of what he says, and I think many of his supporters were counting on that being true.

Lock her up? Not so much.Build the wall? Not so much.Drain the swamp? Not so much.Won't change abortion laws? Not so much.Will bring in the best people? Not so much.Will overturn the ACA? That one he's apparently serious about, but that's one his supporters were kind of hoping he was joking about.

I certainly don't speak for everyone, but I certainly want to see the ACA repealed. Completely. And I have met people who get subsidies that voted for Trump in order to see it repealed. So I think that you are generally wrong on this issue.

And what is it that you want instead? The way things were? I recognize that the ACA had it's faults and needs tweaks, even major changes, but I am baffled by those that want it repealed without any idea of what comes next. I have employer coverage now, but with a spouse that was uninsurable back then and now even more so that he is in his 50s and a cancer survivor, I'm very concerned about our ability to retire in the near future with no ACA.

+1. I'm really curious about Q's motivations and wants here. Repeal ACA, OK. Then what? If Quidnon? were in charge of American healthcare policy, what would that system look like?

As for bipartisan support for the ACA, that was never going to happen. The GOP didn't want him to succeed in passing any type of healthcare reform. What we've got in Obamacare is the most Republican-friendly version, virtually identical to what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts, but the Republicans still wouldn't support it because they did not want Obama to get credit for it. Here's a little background on that (there are footnotes on the source page so you can see where this info comes from):

"...following the adoption of an individual mandate [requirement for everyone to have insurance], Republicans came to oppose the mandate and threatened to filibuster any bills that contained it. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, who led the Republican congressional strategy in responding to the bill, calculated that Republicans should not support the bill, and worked to prevent defections:

'It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out.'

Republican Senators, including those who had supported previous bills with a similar mandate, began to describe the mandate as "unconstitutional". Journalist Ezra Klein wrote in The New Yorker that "a policy that once enjoyed broad support within the Republican Party suddenly faced unified opposition." Reporter Michael Cooper of The New York Times wrote that: "the provision ... requiring all Americans to buy health insurance has its roots in conservative thinking."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Healthcare_debate.2C_2008.E2.80.9310

And he appointed swing justices to the Supreme Court like Bush and Reagan did. Oh snap, he didn't. They were all ridged ideologues that never seem to vote out of step.

Obama's Supreme Court appointments were all more conservative than the justices they were replacing. They still lean liberal, but the Court is now a lot less liberal than it used to be.

Conservatives will never be happy, though. Obama could have appointed Steve Bannon to the Court and they would have complained about contaminating with the "elite media" or something. From my perspective, the entire country has been getting more and more conservative over the past decade as the right wing wins every consecutive battle with the help of a compliant President, but that narrative doesn't play well with the base so they have to pretend the liberals are taking over instead.

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.

You aren't really scared of Trump.

No, I'm not scared of Trump. I'm white, male, straight and middle class. But unlike many who voted for him, I am my brother's keeper.

How exactly will being white, straight or middle class make you braver in this situation? He's not advocated for hunting down gays, comparing Clinton v Trump to Obama v Romney he won because of minorities, and I think he'd be as awful for male body ownership as women.

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.

You aren't really scared of Trump.

No, I'm not scared of Trump. I'm white, male, straight and middle class. But unlike many who voted for him, I am my brother's keeper.

How exactly will being white, straight or middle class make you braver in this situation? He's not advocated for hunting down gays, comparing Clinton v Trump to Obama v Romney he won because of minorities, and I think he'd be as awful for male body ownership as women.

There were over 400 laws passed by GOP leadership restricting women's bodily autonomy is the last year or two. None restricting men. I am literally in the process of getting my passport to be able to go to Canada because I am pregnant and for my safety, I am better off out of the USA. A judge ordered a woman if florida a few years back to be tied to a bed because she wanted a second option on bed rest. Which, btw, there is no medical/scientific evidence that bed rest helps a fetus. Rest and lack of stress help, but not bed rest specifically. And guess what, she still lost the fetus. Huh, who would have thought that tying a woman to bed against her wishes might increase her stress level.

And he appointed swing justices to the Supreme Court like Bush and Reagan did. Oh snap, he didn't. They were all ridged ideologues that never seem to vote out of step.

Obama's Supreme Court appointments were all more conservative than the justices they were replacing. They still lean liberal, but the Court is now a lot less liberal than it used to be.

Conservatives will never be happy, though. Obama could have appointed Steve Bannon to the Court and they would have complained about contaminating with the "elite media" or something. From my perspective, the entire country has been getting more and more conservative over the past decade as the right wing wins every consecutive battle with the help of a compliant President, but that narrative doesn't play well with the base so they have to pretend the liberals are taking over instead.

Not to mention the Garland, which should have been a gimmie to the GOP (who previously suggested him by name).

Kayvent, you honestly think Obama didn't want a nationwide single payer model? The ACA as originally proposed was a compromise from the start, mirroring Romneycare, and much more so including the amendments made to water it down discussed above.

You guys gotta keep your rhetoric straight. On the one hand, don't elect Obama cause he's gonna pass single payer death panels. Oh no he didn't do that, but he didn't compromise.

LOL, and this is just a distraction from Trump who describes himself as "not a huge compromiser." I certainly hope that you guys are open to compromise as we discuss each of Trump's policies over the next few years. Lets start by compromising on his cabinet, yet?

Not to mention the Garland, which should have been a gimmie to the GOP (who previously suggested him by name).

Kayvent, you honestly think Obama didn't want a nationwide single payer model? The ACA as originally proposed was a compromise from the start, mirroring Romneycare, and much more so including the amendments made to water it down discussed above.

The way I understand the history of this topic, the compromise between single payer and the mandate was not between Obama and Republicans but between Obama and the New Democrats in the senate. I suggest that Romneycare and Obamacare are drastically different but that is a topic probably not fit for this thread or forum.

You guys gotta keep your rhetoric straight. On the one hand, don't elect Obama cause he's gonna pass single payer death panels. Oh no he didn't do that, but he didn't compromise.

LOL, and this is just a distraction from Trump who describes himself as "not a huge compromiser." I certainly hope that you guys are open to compromise as we discuss each of Trump's policies over the next few years. Lets start by compromising on his cabinet, yet?

Trump will be a horrible president. If I've said or implied otherwise, it was a mistake. The fact he won't compromise is a secondary issue though; he's just horrible as is.

Concerning the Scalia replacement, I think that issue has been terribly mangled. Obama is the president, his job is to select competent nominees and the legislative branch is suppose to vet and confirm them. Their stubborn refusal to do so is a mockery of the system. If all eight supreme court judges died today as a result of food poisoning from their office Christmas party, Obama should be unimpeded in selecting nine thirty-something competent judges.

Kayvent seems to be unconcerned about conservatives infringing the rights of women, because conservatives have always been so supportive of the rights of the transgendered. It's a weird world we live in, where this is the right's defense of attacking a woman's bodily autonomy.

Kayvent seems to be unconcerned about conservatives infringing the rights of women, because conservatives have anyway been so supportive of the rights of the transgendered. It's a weird world we live in, where this is the right's defense of attacking a woman's bodily autonomy.

Sol, it is actually not uncommon to find extreme sexism and attacks towards feminism from trans communities and their allies. Keep in mind, many feminist push the idea that there is nothing or very little biologically different about the sexes (abilitywise) and most of gender is sociological. That does not mesh well with the idea that you are of different gender than your sex. I have found more anti-choice statements from the trans community than any other group outside of extreme conservatives. It was quite jarring.

From my perspective, the entire country has been getting more and more conservative over the past decade as the right wing wins every consecutive battle with the help of a compliant President, but that narrative doesn't play well with the base so they have to pretend the liberals are taking over instead.

I agree completely with the above bolded portion, but I'd say that it's only been picking up speed during the past decade. I think Obama would have lost if the Republicans had fielded a better candidate at the time, but they weren't ready for a Ron Paul. I suspect that the Millineal generation isn't as liberal in their hearts as they might appear in public, at least not on all subjects. As we now know, the new "alt-right" position has been growing in quiet, and didn't even tell the exit pollsters the truth of their vote.